Quote Originally Posted by Binzhoubum
Great Spirit

It would be ignorant to believe that war is not necessary. Look at history. Although it is cruel, heartbreaking, and meaningless---it serves many purposes.

It is also funny that you seem to be for peace in one hand---e.g., "Hey we have to stop a warmongering nation somehow!"; yet, in the other hand you are preaching violence as a solution to violence---i.e., "How about we take all the warmongering ignorant Amerikans and put chains around their necks and make them sink into the Mariana Trench!?"

Perhaps I read that the wrong way, and, if so, I apologize. But another point still remains...

You constantly compare Bush to Hitler and America to some kind of new nazi regime. Besides the fact that the comparisons you make really don't compare at all with the atrocities Hitler was responsible for, Bush has completely different reasons for his actions than Hitler.

I really don't think that Bush is trying to execute some master plan to wipe out the Islamic people of the world no matter how idiotic and misguided his attempts to run a country are and have been. The world has changed ALOT since the 1940's. We are currently in a global race for resources. Resources that ARE needed,whether you want to admit it or not, to maintain the current living standards and lifestyles in our respective countries.

Which of the following options do you find to be more ethical or moral?

Option #1: The US withdraws all troops from foriegn countries and vows to never use military force again unless attacked. Bush is impeached and a new peaceful government is elected. Since the US economy is virtually built and maintained by the companies who profit from wars and military investment, the US suffers from high unemployment, inflation, deteriorating medical facilities and educational institutions, etc...

Option #2: The US continues to fight small wars around the globe for vital natural resources. American companies continue to thrive and the economy is able to maintain a STEADY rate of growth or lack thereof. American citizens continue to enjoy some of the best educational institutions, medical facilities, places to live in the world.

If you are a leader, what do you do? Sacrifice your own country's people for the better of the world? Or sacrifice the world for your own people?

:smokin:
I don't think it's an "either or" but your point is consistent with the U.S. policy of expansionism, which dates back to 1893 and the deal with Hawaii (land and port access for sugar trade). The only time the policy was in check was during the cold war, but the motivation, historically, was to control markets more than scramble for resources. I think this opens up a different set of questions around global cooperation, domestic research and development of alternative resources etc..